backtop


Print 50 comment(s) - last by WhatKaniSay.. on Dec 12 at 9:54 AM

Illinois wants to ban Google Glass for drivers before it even launches

Illinois is the latest state to consider banning the use of Google Glass while driving; this is interesting because the ban is being considered before Google Glass is even widely available to the public.
 
Odds are that the lawmakers wanting to ban Google Glass have never held the device in their hands, much less actually used it. Illinois and other states are concerned that Google Glass will become a distraction to drivers. Illinois State Senator Ira Silverstein filed legislation this week that would bar motorists from using Google Glass.
 
"It's just another way people will be distracted," the Chicago Democrat told the Springfield bureau of Lee Enterprises newspapers. "People's attention to the road should not be interrupted."
 
Similar legislations in Delaware, New Jersey, and West Virginia have also been introduced. Google Glass is currently only in the hands of developers, and is expected to launch for the public in 2014.
 
The use of Google Glass isn’t only being challenged for drivers; a restaurant in Seattle has issued a ban against any diners wearing Google Glass

Source: Daily Hearld



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I agree on the ban
By Ahnilated on 12/10/2013 10:40:35 AM , Rating: 2
I have seen enough of the distracted and poor drivers on the road. We don't need anything else that takes people's attention off driving. It is bad enough with idiots on the road talking on their cell phones and not using hands free when they change lanes without looking or signaling. They must think because they are on the phone those basic traffic laws become not needed. It gets very tiring to have to drive defensively all the time because of the lack of responsibility on the road.




RE: I agree on the ban
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: I agree on the ban
By ipay on 12/10/2013 10:59:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
People are going to use electronic devices in cars. ... Cops cannot possibly enforce
Yes, however when they cause an accident due to their distraction, I want another charge we can lay on them.


RE: I agree on the ban
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: I agree on the ban
By DT_Reader on 12/10/2013 11:27:17 AM , Rating: 3
Why? What's wrong with "inattentive driving"? That's a catch-all that has worked for years. We don't need laws against talking on the phone, or texting, or using Google Glass, because those laws make it seem like anything not proscribed by law is OK. "Inattentive driving" covers talking to people in the back seat, or watching a video on your passenger's tablet, or applying makeup, or any of dozens of potential distractions. Do we need to enumerate every one of them?


RE: I agree on the ban
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: I agree on the ban
By MrBlastman on 12/10/2013 11:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
Prison reform coupled with sentencing reform would be among the greatest things that could happen to this country. It disgusts me how society wants to throw everyone away to rot rather than try and reform, rehabilitate and improve individuals.

That isn't saying there are some monsters out there that can't be--there are. But, there are plenty that are in who can, who's punishment in no way fits their crime.


RE: I agree on the ban
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2013 11:49:12 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. But I want to take it one step further. I think a major problem is the District Attorney position has become politicized to the point that criminal convictions become ammunition for political gain.

"The more people I throw in jail, for whatever reason, the better I look."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/0...


RE: I agree on the ban
By MrBlastman on 12/10/2013 12:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
That is precisely what is happening. The prosecutors purposefully and zealously pile on the charges to force the "victims," oh, sorry, the defendants to plea bargain and accept a conviction on lesser charges to pad their record. When it comes to voting time, the closer they are to a 100% conviction rate, the better. :(

It makes me sick.

Perhaps every time they lose a case they tried to maliciously prosecute... they should serve time? That or they could have "points" on their "prosecution license." Incur too many and it is off to the clink.


RE: I agree on the ban
By ritualm on 12/10/2013 11:40:06 AM , Rating: 1
If I were you, I'd fast-track autonomous EV network development so I can take the human factor out of the roads altogether. I'd rather masturbate than drive a metal box through a "parking lot" (highway in peak hours) at 25mph.

This is a silly ban. It only nails the symptoms and doesn't go after the true causes - stupid people on roads. Too bad we still have people who think we need to ban things instead of punishing stupid people who, through the use of these things, put themselves and others in harm's way.


RE: I agree on the ban
By WhatKaniSay on 12/12/2013 9:54:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Too bad we still have people who think we need to ban things instead of punishing stupid people who, through the use of these things, put themselves and others in harm's way.


Ritualm, if having a Law that bans distraction is "silly" as you said, then on what legal ground can we base the "punishing stupid people" on?

quote:
I'd rather masturbate than drive a metal box through a "parking lot"

Based on your first logic of "punishing stupid people" without a Law, how about you get punished for "masturbating" even though there is no Laws against that?


RE: I agree on the ban
By marvdmartian on 12/11/2013 9:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
I can see how they could say that Google Glass is a distraction, as it's displaying information in front of your eye, that takes your concentration from driving, where it should be.

However, I wonder if then an argument could be made, that heads up displays found on some top-end vehicles are equally distracting??


What are we doing?
By ebakke on 12/10/2013 11:27:04 AM , Rating: 2
This seems painfully obvious to me. Ban the outcome, not the tool used to perform the action. We don't have laws for: murder with an axe, murder with a pitchfork, murder by drowning, murder my strangling, murder by gun, murder by stapler, murder by sword, etc. We ban murder.

Ban distracted driving. Attach a wide range of penalties that coincide to the amount of damage done or danger to others. Stop wasting time trying to figure out every possible thing a driver could do in their car that would distract them from the task at hand. If someone hits me because they were painting their nails, how am I better off than if they were using Google glass?




RE: What are we doing?
By ClownPuncher on 12/10/2013 12:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
Reckless and inattentive driving are already "banned" (against the law).


RE: What are we doing?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2013 12:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yup lets call this what it is: a cash grab.

Not wearing seatbelt? A fine. Using Google Glass? Another fine.

Those little fines really add up.


RE: What are we doing?
By ebakke on 12/10/2013 12:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
That's precisely my point. This is an enormous waste of time.


RE: What are we doing?
By ClownPuncher on 12/10/2013 12:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
And taxpayer money.


A Step in the Right Direction
By Torgog on 12/10/2013 11:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
Considering the number of distractions attached to a car (radio, climate control, GPS) and the distractions brought into the car (cell phone, kids, dog, food, make up, etc...), Google Glass may be a step in the right direction. Imagine if the device at some point can sync with the vehicle systems in addition to the cell phone. The driver could then control all of these devices without pulling his/her eyes from the windshield.

While I'm not crazy about the idea of easier Internet access while one drives, I do believe the ultimate responsibility will always be with the driver. People choose their level of attentiveness to the road just as they have a choice as to whether or not they drive under the influence.




RE: A Step in the Right Direction
By Zshazz on 12/10/2013 6:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you. Put speedometer, navigation, radio stations on Glass. No more taking your eyes off the road to handle these tasks. Glass has some potential in actually aiding the driver, if we allow it.


By Monkey's Uncle on 12/10/2013 6:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
hey, let's take it a step further. Why not make Google Glass more invasive to the point that it completely takes over your motor and cognitive functions to drive the car for you.

Just think about it -- Google driving you to work. Oops, I shouldn't have said that -- Apple will be kicking in their iDriver program as soon as they read that...


I hope CA is Next
By BillyBatson on 12/10/2013 6:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
Thank goodness!!!! I hope CA introduces a similar ban and that all other states fall in line and band Glass as well while driving.




By Monkey's Uncle on 12/10/2013 6:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
With yet more 'laws' that are seldom, if ever, enforced.

Can you text or use a cellphone without a hands free rig legally in Illinois? Most places like where I live you can't. Yet when I drive down the highway and glance at the others in the cars around me, 3 out of 5 drivers have a phone held up to their ear -- even in the fast lane.

These laws are a joke and a waste of taxpayer's money.




As an owner of google glass...
By crispbp04 on 12/11/2013 10:53:46 AM , Rating: 2
I think it shouldn't be used while driving. The display is not in the direct line of sight and I can see users gazing up at the screen long enough to kill a pedestrian, veer off the road, etc...

Glass is not as useful as I hoped it would be, but wearable computing will probably be an every day part of our lives in 5-10 years. Maybe Glass 4.0 (assuming we're at 2.0 with these new XE devices) will be closer to the sweet spot, because it's definitely more than one iteration away in it's current state.




Free advertising
By damianrobertjones on 12/10/2013 11:30:03 AM , Rating: 1
This is just more free advertising for the product and you can get your backside that EVERYTHING you record ends up having something sent to Google.




Next on the Ban List
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/13, Rating: -1
RE: Next on the Ban List
By MrBlastman on 12/10/2013 10:54:25 AM , Rating: 2
Generally I'm for far more freedoms that are uninterrupted. In this case though, where driving is involved, I disagree.

I live in one of the busiest cities in America--Atlanta. We have horrendous traffic no matter where you go, be it the freeways or the surface streets. Cars are everywhere. I see at least one or two times a week a driver texting while behind the wheel. I don't even need to look in the window. Their inability to drive properly gives them away, performing all sorts of infractions. I see this to a lesser degree with people talking on their phones but it is still a problem.

The problem isn't people who can handle technology behind the wheel--it is the majority of people who can't. These are the people who don't know when to put the device down or stop looking at it. With Google Glass, you don't put it down, it is always in front of you. Can you really expect these people to use common sense after looking at this?

http://expressiveepicurean.files.wordpress.com/201...

The majority of humans are in the 85-115 range and in actuality, most, well, 98% have less than 130 and 84% have less than 115!

I'm not saying they need to be herded like sheep (okay, the thought has crossed my mind but my socially moderate, fiscally conservative mindset draws the line--I voted Libertarian several times in the last decade), but there need to be limits when human lives are at stake. Driving directly involves the lives of your fellow man all around you on the road. Being distracted for even a second can cost the lives of not only yourself, but other drivers and their families.

So the line must be drawn. Cars require instantaneous reaction and constant attention to operate properly. The bulk of citizens aren't trained in performance driving and many of them brake at the bottom of a hill or in the middle of a turn when going only 35 miles per hour.

So in this odd case, I find myself agreeing with Illinois. You won't see that often. I won't ever live in that state if I can help it. This time, though, other drivers need to have a dependable, safe journey when on the road.

The people who think otherwise can just learn to put their crap down, grab the steering wheel, face forward, pay attention and recognize the responsibility--no, obligation they have to do their best to ensure proper operation of their vehicle for safe travel.

Maybe when we have a computerized grid that autopilots every single car in digital symphony, then we can allow distracted activities for the one behind the wheel in a car.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By MrBlastman on 12/10/2013 10:56:03 AM , Rating: 2
Addendum: The best way to handle this is to put accelerometers and gps units in the devices (that can't be overriden in software) that cut the power to the input controls when it senses the device in motion.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By Moriicon on 12/10/2013 11:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.

Its quite simple, when you get in the drivers seat, the only task you should perform is to drive.

Not, answer the phone, hands free or not, text, email, play with the radio, eat, put make -up on, play with yourself.

Its quite simple, driving a heavy moving object is like pointing a loaded weapon at someone, yes you may think its all good messing around or chatting to your mate on a call, but if you screw up because of 1 seconds worth of lapse of concentration and wipe out someone your life as you know it will be over!

Murder is murder, that is why there is such a thing as death by reckless driving!

Have you lost a loved one due to this? If so, you know what I am talking about, if not, I hope these kinds of laws help save you from such pain.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2013 11:11:34 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Have you lost a loved one due to this? If so, you know what I am talking about, if not, I hope these kinds of laws help save you from such pain.


Ah yes, the cry of the nanny-stater. They're "saving lives"...

quote:
Its quite simple, when you get in the drivers seat, the only task you should perform is to drive.


Okay than I'm installing a microphone on your black box. If you even TALK while driving, if you turn on the radio, if you do ANYTHING, I'm throwing you in jail.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By Moriicon on 12/10/2013 11:21:55 AM , Rating: 2
Nanny state......

I wish the nanny state could bring my friends back from the dead!

quote:
quote:
Have you lost a loved one due to this? If so, you know what I am talking about, if not, I hope these kinds of laws help save you from such pain.

Ah yes, the cry of the nanny-stater. They're "saving lives"...


What a classy comment, are you proud of yourself!


RE: Next on the Ban List
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: Next on the Ban List
By ClownPuncher on 12/10/2013 1:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
WHAT ABOUT THE CHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILDREN?!


RE: Next on the Ban List
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/10/2013 6:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
Let their parents get them their own Google Glass!


RE: Next on the Ban List
By Schrag4 on 12/10/2013 1:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
Moriicon, I feel for you, as you've obviously lost someone close to you. I lost my father 10 years ago this new years eve in an auto accident that was preventable (he was a pedestrian, 2 other drivers combined to cause the accident), so I can relate. However, you seem to equate negligence with murder, and that's clearly wrong. Negligence should be punishable when it results in a loss, but calling it murder is going too far, by quite a bit IMO. You have to take intent into account.

IMO, the stance that poor behavior should be banned is just a long road to hell paved with good intentions. I feel like our ever-increasing tendancy to absolve everyone of personal responsibility has much to do with why there are so many self-absorbed people on the road, who put everyone around them at risk either by driving distracted or by simply driving as if the rules, written or unwritten, shoudn't apply to them - both are incredibly selfish actions. However, one-size-fits-all laws like bans on certain behavior are generally geared toward the lowest common denominator. As others have said, negligent use of electronics while driving has a root cause in decades of the deterioration of personal responsibility, and that negligence is really the symptom. I make it my responsibility to teach my kids the pitfalls of certain behavior at every opportunity including pointing out when someone else is acting irresponsibly. Unfortunately I feel like I'm in the minority. Of course if you try to point out to parents that they have a huge responsibility to make sure their kids know better, you'll make them feel bad and that hasn't been PC for a very long time.

I don't know, man, accidents will always happen, no matter what laws you write or how well you or I raise our kids. Personally, I feel you would be better received/more effective if you went to elementary schools and told your story of how inattentive driving took the lives of those close to you, rather than trying to pass a law to force others to do what you feel is right. If you're passionate, it'll sink in, I guarantee. You'd probably save lives for decades to come. But the moment you become belligerent about it, you'll actually be working against your cause, IMO.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2013 11:06:53 AM , Rating: 2
You can draw the line, but people are going to cross over it.

Everyone ignores the texting while driving bans and talking while driving bans, because they can't be realistically enforced. Just as everyone with Google Glass, a small number to be sure, will ignore this ban.

Lawmakers need to work with people and manufacturers to better integrate technologies safely. NOT make draconian bans on them based on fear and shortsightedness.

Is there ANY data showing Google Glass to be a threat? Of course not, but this Liberal windbag wants to get votes and make it seem like he's "protecting" the idiot Technophobes who voted for him, so we have a "ban".

As a Libertarian and a guy I personally respect, I'm kind of shocked you would give further rise to the police state in this country. WE as a people need to draw lines as well, or pretty soon there will be NOTHING that's not "illegal" or micromanaged.

I hate to put this so crudely, but it seems like we just cannot progress as a society until the previous generation of Americans all die off and stop voting. Maybe then we can have a reasonable dialogue with lawmakers about the role of technology in our society and it's limits.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By Moriicon on 12/10/2013 11:15:47 AM , Rating: 2
No!

Its this simple....

I respect and value my fellow beings right to life! This means I pay full attention to the task at hand when in control of a vehicle. I do this out of respect of my fellow road users so as to minimize the risk I pose using the road. I do this because I do not want the death of a fellow human on my shoulders because I was too busy concentrating on a call or texting a mate!

People that do this clearly have no regard for their safety or other road users and are completely selfish. If this be the case, then yes government does need to step in to protect MY right of life seeming the selfish wont do it for themselves.

You can dress it up which ever way you want, High and Low, the truth stands that not putting 100% of your time into driving when in control of a vehicle is 100% wrong. There is no argument to that.

I am all for banning Hands free phone calls as well, one less distraction!


RE: Next on the Ban List
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/13, Rating: 0
RE: Next on the Ban List
By troysavary on 12/12/2013 12:48:25 AM , Rating: 1
This is a new low, even for you. You have the Google cock so far up your ass that now you want someone to die because they support a ban on driving while distracted by the Google Glass. This is not about freedom, driving is not a right. Their are certain responsibilities drivers must take for themselves to be allowed the privilege of driving. If you can't see how an always on entertainment device is going to lead to crashes, then you are simply too fucking stupid to have a conversation with. This is not the same as a HUD. The HUD displays basic info like speed that the driver needs to know while still keeping the eyes on the road. Some idiot watching porn while driving is going to be far more distracted then someone checking his speed or fuel level.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By ritualm on 12/10/2013 12:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I respect and value my fellow beings right to life! This means I pay full attention to the task at hand when in control of a vehicle. I do this out of respect of my fellow road users so as to minimize the risk I pose using the road. I do this because I do not want the death of a fellow human on my shoulders because I was too busy concentrating on a call or texting a mate!

People that do this clearly have no regard for their safety or other road users and are completely selfish. If this be the case, then yes government does need to step in to protect MY right of life seeming the selfish wont do it for themselves.

You can dress it up which ever way you want, High and Low, the truth stands that not putting 100% of your time into driving when in control of a vehicle is 100% wrong. There is no argument to that.

I am all for banning Hands free phone calls as well, one less distraction!

Your argument makes no sense.

So it's a good idea to ban things instead of punishing people who make a mess while using these things? You're doing nothing to the root cause, which - as you clearly stated - is people. Banning this and that because they cause drivers to be distracted is not the answer, and it doesn't work because you'll still have accidents involving people who do those things.

Let's not ban the Google Glasses and Galaxy Gears from the roads. Punish those who cause accidents while using these things instead.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/10/2013 7:00:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am all for banning Hands free phone calls as well, one less distraction!


Hi Nanny.

Why not ban passengers in your car as well? They are one frig of a lot more distracting than Google Glass or smartphones - with or without handsfree. You don't think so? Carry a back seat full of rowdy 10 year olds sometime.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By MrBlastman on 12/10/2013 11:34:56 AM , Rating: 2
Businesses will only integrate safety technologies into their products if they are forced to through legislation. The nature of business is to maximize profit and those features cost money. They aren't going to do that because it is socially and morally responsible--because a competitor is bound to use it against them.

There /are/ technologies that can be put into all these mobile devices to prevent usage while driving. I think it is a matter of time before something is done to force manufacturers to implement them.

I don't like a police state at all--I'm against it for sure. :) I think we're on the same page regarding that. I'd rather the devices themselves deny access than give cops another reason to search your person or vehicle.

As for dying off, well, I think that won't do the trick. :( Remember, all these people have been breeding... and their offspring are likely to be as messed up as they were. In fact, the more they breed, the worse our world becomes due to the more intelligent procreating less.

THAT problem is a very difficult one to solve. Mankind put us on course for it once we figured out how to make food easily available to the masses for small amounts of money.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By Reclaimer77 on 12/10/2013 11:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Businesses will only integrate safety technologies into their products if they are forced to through legislation.


I can't believe you just said that....

sigh, I am depressed.

Dead people can't buy cars. Which is why the private sector developed every single safety feature we have today. And no, we didn't need mandates to make them standard. Most were well on their way to being fully integrated before the Government even addressed them.

You just called yourself a Libertarian...but I'm confused. I just don't understand how you can take the position on some of these issues that you have.

quote:
As for dying off, well, I think that won't do the trick.


Oh it totally will. Newer generations grew up on the smartphone, the internet, and the PC/gaming console. However they are still young and don't really vote or get involved yet.

Once these people displace these goddamn old luddites and technophobes trying to keep us in the dark ages like they grew up in, we'll be MUCH better off.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By MrBlastman on 12/10/2013 12:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You just called yourself a Libertarian...but I'm confused. I just don't understand how you can take the position on some of these issues that you have.


I've voted Libertarian but I'm truly a social moderate. Look, how's this for Liberty:

The day I can drag someone out of their car, stick my H&K P30 to their head and pull the trigger, legally, for killing half my family in their sedan, is the day we have true liberties. That isn't going to happen anytime soon.

You're right about seatbelt legislation--most of it happened in the 80s by individual states. The seatbelts didn't save lives of people you hit, they were to save your own life. Unless you were fat and overweight (which years ago, not as many people were), seatbelts weren't an intrusion on your liberties. Making you put your phone down is.

I actually believe most of humanity is far more selfish than they'd like to admit. A seatbelt can help themselves live longer. Forcing to stop using their phone is an intrusion, an inconvenience and a nuisance!

I still hold that most businesses will seek to have the best bottom line possible, regardless. Profit is king and unless their peers follow suit and agree, no technology company is going to willingly restrict device usage (with no override) while driving a car.

Look, I hate restricting freedoms. I think it stinks. I hate Federal intervention. I despise most of it. With driving a car, though, doesn't it at least make sense that your number one responsibility behind the wheel is to drive and not to text Amy about her "OMG nice hair, dudette!?"

It would help everyone if these devices were inaccessible from the driver's seat while the vehicle is moving. If the States were to decide upon this, it would be even better. It would be best if it were done through technology rather than "Just another law for a Cop to harass and violate you" about.

quote:
Once these people displace these goddamn old luddites and technophobes trying to keep us in the dark ages like they grew up in, we'll be MUCH better off.


Just because they're tech-spawn doesn't mean they aren't dummies. IQ is both a product of genes and environmental exposure while a young child. If a kid is around a bunch of idiots who don't read to them or stimulate their mind during their first five years of life, their intellect will suffer for the rest of their life as the framework (i.e. neurological interconnects) are established during this time.

The more they breed, the worse the average intelligence becomes. We plateaued in the 20th century and it is all downhill from here on out.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By troysavary on 12/12/2013 12:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you even know what a Luddite is. The Luddites hated technology that replaced them. How is telling someone they can't use their useless toy when they drive being a Luddite? Before you start throwing words around to denigrate others, make sure you know what the word means or you look like an idiot.

The generation you want to disappear is the generation that invented all the tech that is so precious to you. The kids growing up on smartphones can barely complete a sentence. I have little hope that they will be able to advance science and tech themselves. Just because they use it doesn't mean they understand it. This generation is far less educated than the previous few. Having tons of tech is not helping them if they only use it for entertainment.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By DT_Reader on 12/10/2013 11:32:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see at least one or two times a week a driver texting while behind the wheel. I don't even need to look in the window. Their inability to drive properly gives them away, performing all sorts of infractions. I see this to a lesser degree with people talking on their phones but it is still a problem.

The problem isn't people who can handle technology behind the wheel--it is the majority of people who can't.


Sorry, but the problem is a lack of enforcement of the existing laws, and I don't see how new laws will change that. You can clearly identify the bad drivers - so where are the cops to pull them over? If you get new laws against texting while driving, you still don't have cops to pull them over. You haven't solved your root problem. And even then, the true root problem is licensing bad drivers in the first place. You should look to the DMV for solutions, not the legislature.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By MrBlastman on 12/10/2013 11:40:03 AM , Rating: 2
The DMV won't do crap. The minute you start denying people driver's licenses is the minute group after group pulls out the "racism" card or whatever else they can come up with and point to Jim Crow laws and literacy requirements to vote.

You can legislate in "safety" features to disable input/output control while driving.

We can't possibly afford enough cops to catch all the offenders... nor would we be better off if we did. We'd be worse off, actually.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By mchentz on 12/10/2013 11:30:55 AM , Rating: 1
So what about as cars become more technology advanced? Cars now have stuff in them to keep lanes, and slow down. Yes I agree with today's technology in cars that distracted driving is bad! In the near future cars will be driving themselves, parking themselves, and other stuff then the sweeping ban that has been made a law is now the problem.


RE: Next on the Ban List
By DT_Reader on 12/10/2013 11:37:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cars now have stuff in them to keep lanes, and slow down.

They always have had. They're called "drivers".


RE: Next on the Ban List
By ClownPuncher on 12/10/2013 12:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
Personal responsibility? Preposterous!


RE: Next on the Ban List
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/10/2013 6:56:09 PM , Rating: 1
Isn't Google working self-driving cars?

I'm sure if the whole Google Glass thing were an Apple creation, these guys would be just fine with it. After all if it is good for Obama, it is good for the Illinois State boffins as well, right?


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki